View from the FringeNewsletter of the New England Rug Society

1

Vol. 24 No. 4 April 2016 www.ne-rugsociety.org

1

1

April 21: Collector Series, Honoring Yon Bard

Yonathan (“Yon”) Bard was born in Vienna and grew up in Tel

Aviv. Following a stint as a charter member of the Israeli Air

Force, he came to America to study chemical engineering.

When he encountered what were then newfangled computers,

however, he decided to make them his career: he went to work

for IBM, where he specialized in computer performance

analysis until his retirement, in 1991.

At about that time, circumstances conspired to get Yon

interested in oriental rugs, and he quickly became an avid

collector. He joined NERS (then the New Boston Rug Society)

in 1992. He has served on the society’s steering committee

almost from the beginning, and he edited its newsletter for

fifteen years. He has given several talks at NERS and ICOC

meetings (where some of his pieces were exhibited), and

in 2006 he and Jim Adelson were co-curators of the exhibition

“Rare and Unusual Turkmen Rugs,” at the second Boston ACOR.

In his talk, Yon will give “a blow-by-blow account of his

road to Turkomania.” This will be followed by a slide show

illustrating various aspects of his collecting interests, such

as unique (as far as he can tell) pieces, sub-collections (small

groups of unlike pieces that share some unusual trait), mystery

pieces of unknown origin or purpose, and others as time may

permit. He will end by discussing some unanswered questions

about Turkmen weavings, in the hope of getting answers from

his audience. He will also bring a few selected examples from

his collection for “touch-and-tell.”

April 21 Meeting Details

Time: 7:00 p.m.Place: First Parish, 14 Bedford Road Lincoln, MA 01773Directions: From Rt. 95 (128), take exit 28B, Trapelo Road West. Proceed west about 2.5 miles to a stop sign at the five-way intersection in Lincoln (there’s a white planter in the middle of the intersection). Go right on Bedford Road for 0.1 mile to Bemis Hall, a large brick building on the right. First Parish is on your left. From Rt. 2, take Bedford Road, Lincoln Center exit (eastbound, turn right at the light; westbound, go through light, turn right, and circle 270° to cross Rt. 2 at the light). Proceed 0.9 mile to Bemis Hall, a large brick building on your left. First Parish is on your right.Parking: Park in the lot behind the parish house, along the street, or in front of Bemis Hall if that building is dark and not in use. Food: Provided by members whose names begin with A through G. Please arrive before 6:45 to set up, and stay afterwards to clean up.

Yon Bard

2 View from the Fringe

May 21: NERS Annual Picnic, with Moth Mart and Show-and-Tell

The annual NERS picnic, the final meeting of the 2016–17

season, will be held on Sunday, May 21, at Gore Place,

the lovely grounds of the former governor’s mansion

in Waltham. We’ll again have a huge, enclosed tent with

water and electricity, adjacent bathroom facilities, tables

and chairs for all, and plenty of lawn space for mingling

and spreading out rugs. Supply your own picnic lunch, and

NERS will provide soft drinks, tea, and coffee.

Lunch will be preceded by the ever-popular moth

mart; we invite all members (dealers or not) to bring things

to sell, swap, or give away . Past offerings have included

rugs, bags and trappings, kilims, and other textiles; books

and periodicals; and even tribal jewelry and clothing.

Following lunch, there’s the last show-and-tell of the

season (see photos above). Bring one or two of your

treasured items to share with fellow members—mystery

textiles or rugs, exotic specimens you think we should

know more about, or wonderful new acquisitions you

want to show off.

Picnic DetailsDate: Sunday, May 21 Time: Noon to 4 p.m.

Place: Gore Place, 52 Gore Street, Waltham, MA 02453

From the Mass Pike: Take exit 17 and follow signs to Rt. 20

westbound (Main St. in Watertown). After 1.5 miles, turn left

onto Gore St. at the second of two adjoining traffic lights

(Shell station on right). Proceed 0.2 miles on Gore St. Turn left

(through center island) to Gore Place entrance.

From Rte. 128: Take exit 26 onto Rt. 20 eastbound (it starts

out as Weston Road and becomes Main St.). After 3.3 miles

turn right on Gore St. at the first of two adjoining traffic lights

(Shell station on left). Proceed on Gore St. as above.

From Newton: Go north on Crafts St. Turn right (at traffic

light) on North St. Cross the Charles River and go straight.

The street eventually becomes Gore St. Entrance to Gore

Place will be on right.

Parking: Use the parking area on the estate grounds.

Come rain or come shine: NERS picnickers enjoying post-lunch show-and-tell in 2016 (top) and 2015

View from the Fringe 3

February Meeting Review: Jeff Spurr on Prayer-Rug History

On February 24, NERS member Jeff Spurr—our most frequent

speaker, on a wide range of topics —addressed us once again (1).

His presentation, “Ends and Means: Islamic Prayer Rugs

in Context,” expanded upon his introduction to the 2002

NERS online exhibition Prayer Rugs and Related Textiles

(see https://tinyurl.com/9ab2h26) and his 2003 HALI article

on the same subject (HALI 127, pp. 105–11).

Jeff began by crediting the 1974 Textile Museum

exhibition Prayer Rugs and the catalogue essay by Richard

Ettinghausen as milestones from which our understanding

has grown. He noted that, within the general category of Islamic

art—items made by or for Muslims—there is a subset of articles

used specifically in the practice of Islam.

Even in its earliest days, he continued, Islam achieved

glorious cultural heights, exemplified by the late-seventh-

century Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem, and the early-

eighth-century Great Mosque of Damascus, whose distinctive

architectural forms inform prayer-rug vocabulary. Similar

imagery is seen on a stunning double-folio frontispiece

from a contemporary Qur’an: schematically representing

a columned mosque, it depicts a mihrab as well as hanging

lamps and a garden with cypress trees (2).

Jeff then turned to the functional links between prayer

rugs and the five pillars, or core principles, of Islam. The

second pillar, salat (devotional prayer), requires ritual purity,

including a means of separating the person praying from the

ground. Palm-fiber mats may have been one such means;

an early source describes Muhammad himself performing

prayer on a mat (khumra). The familiar term sajjada does not

appear in the sources until the mid-tenth century. The earliest

specific references to prayer carpets date from the eleventh

and twelfth centuries; they are found in discarded documents

cached in the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Fustat. The term they

use, musallayat, may well refer to communal prayer rugs.

Jeff next considered the identifying motif of prayer

rugs: the mihrab. As a three-dimensional architectural form,

the mihrab—the indicator of a mosque’s Mecca-facing

wall—emerged early; he illustrated one (3) originally from

the Baghdad mosque of Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur (r. 754–75).

When mihrab imagery first appeared on rugs is unknown;

the earliest depiction of such a rug, featuring a lobed mihrab

inscribed “Allah,” is in a Persian manuscript created between

1330 and 1343 (4).

1. Jeff Spurr, making his introductory

remarks

2. Folio of a Qur’an frontispiece,

early 8th century, discovered in Sana‘a

3. Mihrab from the mosque

of Caliph al-Mansur, 754–75

4. Illustration showing Muhammad on a prayer rug, from

a Tarikhnama of Bal‘ami, 1330–43, Freer Gallery of Art

4 View from the Fringe

2

3

54

6 7

Jeff Spurr on Prayer Rugs, cont.

In manuscript illustration, being depicted on a carpet

of any design, including one featuring a mihrab, connoted

a person’s elevated status. A 1479 miniature, for example,

pictures a sufi, having been refused passage on a ship, being

transported across a river on his prayer rug. In this instance,

themes of religious purpose, personal eminence, and magic

are combined.

In addition to the shape of architectural mihrabs, other

features associated with them—including columns, pendant

lamps, and paradisiacal-garden flora—also made their way

onto prayer rugs. Jeff showed one late-sixteenth-century

Ottoman court prayer rug that featured a mihrab unadorned

save for a hanging lamp and delicate columns (5), and

another whose mihrab was filled with what he termed a“riot”

of flowers.

On Mughal prayer rugs the floral elements multiplied:

the arch of one noble example from around 1640 contained

an outsized blossoming plant that Jeff interpreted as a tree

of life (see p. 7, fig. 4); on a “millefleur” specimen from

around 1800, a profusion of blossoms sprang from a vase,

and cypress trees flanked the arch in place of columns.

Certain Mamluk-style and later Turkish prayer rugs

incorporated motifs representing another aspect of salat—

that is, the ablutions required before prayer. Jeff interpreted

the octagonal device in the lower field of a so-called reentrant

rug (6) as a water basin; the presence of a ewer directly

above it lent his interpretation credence.

Unlike these courtly examples, Jeff noted, most prayer

rugs were produced by weavers working in cottage-industry

settings, where motifs evolved, or rather devolved, gradually

losing their significance and integrity. He showed examples

whose hanging lamps had been transformed into inverted

ewers, or whose columns were impossibly balanced on floral

sprigs.

In many mosques, Jeff explained, multiple-niche

carpets known as safs were the preferred floor covering. Via

their arcaded design—often including hanging lamps—safs

(the term derives from the word for “rank” or “row”) served

to organize communal worshippers in orderly rows. Among

Jeff’s examples were the antique saf s that once carpeted

the Ottoman imperial mosque at Edirne, and, in jarring

contrast, the machine-made replacements that now cover

the same vast floor. From farther east, an Ersari-Beshir

Turkmen saf from a Bukharan mosque and one from Khotan

both echoed the original “architectonic” imagery, albeit in

much altered form.

The earliest extant saf—produced in fourteenth-century

Iran—was not piled, but rather made in a cotton flatweave

5. Ottoman court prayer rug with lamp and columns,

late 16th century, Al-Sabah Collection, Kuwait6. Cairene prayer rug with basin and ewer, ca. 1530,

Pergamon Museum, Berlin

View from the Fringe 5

Jeff Spurr on Prayer Rugs, cont.

8

9 10

11 12

technique known as zilu. Anatolia produced kilim saf s; Jeff

showed one, possibly from the eighteenth century, on which

the “arcades” had become independent arched enclosures,

each with the vestige of a hanging lamp.

Jeff concluded his talk with Persian and Indian textiles—tent

panels and domestic hangings—that appropriated prayer rugs’

arches, cypresses, and other paradisiacal motifs. Examples

included painted and block-printed kalamkari from India and

Persia, and Persian embroidered (7) or appliqued hangings.

Not made for explicit devotional use, their prayer-rug-derived

iconography, according to Jeff, nevertheless “cast a protective

aura over the spaces marked by their presence.”

Following his prepared remarks, Jeff took questions

from the audience. As to whether the terms “prayer rug” and

“saf ” were interchangeable, he again described the former’s

single niche and use by an individual, in contrast to the latter’s

multiple niches and communal function. In answer to a query

about whether “double-niche prayer rugs” were aptly named,

he responded that the term was nonsensical and irritating,

because their layout, with spandrels at every corner, denies

the visual definition of a prayer rug and must represent

an autonomous design not indicative of that function. Asked

whether he had considered Torah curtains, he replied that

these were often produced in the same areas as prayer rugs

and often employed related imagery; he cited a famous

example woven in Cairo for an Italian synagogue. Responding

to a broad question about regional differences, he contrasted

the weavings of Morocco and Indonesia, areas with completely

different geography and traditions. He again stressed that

salat mandated that prayer be performed on something clean,

whether prayer rug, reed mat, or other surface.

A member show-and-tell concluded the evening.

Caucasian prayer rugs were best represented; they included

an Akstafa with boteh s in its field, two Fachralo Kazaks (8),

and a Shirvan Marasali with a typical lattice. Likely the oldest

Caucasian example was a prayer rug assigned by its owner

to Kuba; it featured an unusually wide border with large

rosettes. Four Anatolian pieces included kilims attributed

to Ladik, Nuzumla, and Sivrihisar and a lone Anatolian pile

weaving: a Ladik prayer rug with tulips hanging upside down

below the main field. Three rugs originated farther east: one

was a possible Ersari with a stylized arch, the second either

Tekke or Saryk, and the final one possibly Kirghiz.

Our many thanks to Jeff, who as always wove together

complex threads—cultural, religious, historical, artistic, and

commercial—and this time gave us a richer understanding

of Islamic prayer rugs.

Jim Adelson

7. Sequined embroidery (pulak-duzi ), Isfahan,

late 19th century, private collection

8. Post-presentation show-and-tell: Jeff considering one of the

two Fachralo Kazak prayer rugs brought by NERS members

6 View from the Fringe

March Meeting Review: DeWitt Mallary on Jürg Rageth’s Turkmen Carpets

On March 24, dealer and NERS member DeWitt Mallary spoke

on selected aspects of Jürg Rageth’s two-volume Turkmen Carpets: A New Perspective. DeWitt was the editor of the English

translation of the book—an undertaking originally expected

to last six months, but ultimately extending over three years.

Before turning to Turkmen Carpets and the research behind

it, DeWitt commented, “I’m not here shilling books,” since the

print run of 500 copies has already sold out. He then reviewed

the chronology of the project, starting with the publication

in 1997 of Jürg’s Anatolian Kilims and Radiocarbon Dating: A New Approach to Dating Anatolian Kilims. At that time, some

European collectors of Turkmen rugs approached Jürg,

asking if the same technology could be applied to their

pieces, and expressing interest in such a project. An initial

group of carpets from private collections was carbon-14

tested in 1997, and more pieces from Russian museums

followed in 1998, leading to a symposium in 1999 to discuss

the results. Although Jürg had perhaps expected to publish

his findings not long thereafter, DeWitt characterized him

as “a consummate master of scope creep.” Many other

aspects of Turkmen rugs would pique Jürg’s curiosity; his

focus on dyestuffs and then on mordants, for example,

added years to the project, and the book was published only

at the end of 2015.

DeWitt then shared some of the carbon-dating results,

starting with a few older examples for which the data clustered

most clearly. (He did not attempt to explicate the methodology

and technology of carbon dating, or of possible issues in its

application to carpets, other than to emphasize that it was

deemed most useful for pieces at least 250 to 300 years

old.) Some of these initial examples included a Salor main

carpet from the Hecksher collection dated to the second

half of the sixteenth or first half of the seventeenth century (1),

a Qaradashli main carpet from a private collection dated

to the first half of the seventeenth century, a Tekke main carpet

from the Munkacsi-Jeffries collection dated to the sixteenth

or seventeenth century, and a Turkmen torba formerly in the

Hecksher collection dated to the seventeenth century.

DeWitt then focused on a complete Turkmen tent band (2),

which in 1975 had shown up at Rippon Boswell (then in Basel),

where it was catalogued as “Yomut, mid-nineteenth century”

and sold for $690. Its 1998 carbon-dating results indicated

that it was much older, the two most likely date ranges being

1520–1602 and 1622–74. Using other approaches, its

1. Salor main carpet, 2nd half 16th or 1st half 17th century

(Hecksher Collection, San Francisco)

2. Tent band (detail) from a private collection, 17th century,

with arrow indicating red produced from cochineal

View from the Fringe 7

Mallary on Rageth’s Turkmen Carpets, cont.

potential age could be gauged more narrowly. Dye analysis

showed the presence of Mexican cochineal, used in Central

Asia only after 1550. Mordant analysis detected tin, whose

use for this purpose was discovered in 1610. So the three

types of analyses combined put the likely date of creation

between circa 1610 and 1670. Similarly, carbon-14 testing

of an Arabatchi main carpet yielded probable date ranges

of 1492–1600 and 1614–57, but the presence of Mexican

cochineal and use of a tin mordant limited the age range

to the seventeenth century.

In addition to Jürg’s various analytic methods, DeWitt

presented some of his observations regarding Turkmen

designs, many of which, according to Jürg, come from

sources other than the Oghuz Turks. For example, the

sainak motif, seen in the borders of Tekke or other ensi s,

can be related to quadruple spiral designs dating from

as early as the Bronze Age and possibly serving to ward off

evil spirits (3). Jürg links the ak su (literally, “white water”)

pattern found on weavings of several Turkmen groups

to watercourses from a garden-design tradition going back

to Sumerian and Assyrian antiquity; such watercourse imagery

appears over the centuries in both high- and folk-art forms.

In contrast to Turkmen motifs of ancient origin, DeWitt

noted, Jürg considers certain design elements to derive from

near-contemporary Mughal and Safavid sources. The floral

motifs in the elems of one type of Yomut main carpets, for

example, likely originated in Mughal single-flowering-plant

depictions. An old (second half of the seventeenth century)

and obviously deluxe all-pile tent band has related single-

flower motifs (4). In addition, certain multiple-gul Yomut

carpets, Jürg argues, owe their design to the in-and-out

palmettes on a group of Safavid carpets: the asymmetry

of the kepse and “C” guls on the earliest of these Yomut

carpets supports this thesis.

DeWitt concluded with Jürg’s acknowledgment that

his own twenty years of research have by no means reached

the end of the story, and that “there’s lots more work to be

done.”

3. Sainak outer-border motifs on an 18th-century Tekke ensi (detail), compared with three early amuletic forms

4. Flowering-plant motif on a pile tentband (detail),

2nd half 17th century, compared with the field designs

of two Mughal pashmina carpets, both ca. 1640

8 View from the Fringe

Mallary on Rageth’s Turkmen Carpets, cont.

Photo Credits

Upcoming Events: Rugs, Textiles, Related Arts

AuctionsApr. 22, Vienna, Austria Auction Company, Fine Oriental Rugs VIIApr. 25, Boston, Skinner, Fine Oriental Rugs & Carpets (see notice of related event, p. 9)Apr. 25, London, Bonhams, Islamic and Indian ArtApr. 26, London, Sotheby’s, Arts of the Islamic WorldApr. 27, London, Christie’s, Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds (including carpets)Apr. 28, London, Christie’s So. Kensington, Art & Textiles of the Islamic & Indian WorldsMay 20, Wiesbaden, Rippon Boswell, Teppich Engelhardt Liquidation Sale

June 11, Boston, Grogan & Company, June Auction

p. 1: Dora Bard; p. 2: Jim Sampson; pp. 3–5: Julia Bailey (figs. 1, 8), Jeff Spurr (figs. 2–7); pp. 6–8: Jürg Rageth (figs. 1–4), Doug Bailey (figs. 5–7); p. 9: MFA Boston (top); Peter Pap (bottom)

ExhibitionsUntil Aug. 27, New York, Metropolitan Museum, Carpets for Kings: Six Masterpieces of Iranian Weaving

FairsApr. 4–9, London, Battersea Park, Decorative Antiques and Textiles Fair

A member show-and-tell of some twenty Turkmen pile

weavings followed DeWitt’s talk. Understandably, these were

less ancient than the ones highlighted in his presentation

or featured in Jürg’s book, although one member had had

his six-gul Tekke torba (5) carbon-14 dated at the University

of Arizona. Its probable date range extended from the late

seventeenth to the early nineteenth century; the owner

thought that it was perhaps from around 1800. Another

member brought two Chodor chuval s (6) and asked the

audience for opinions on which of the two was older, and

whether carbon-14 dating would reveal that. The general

response was that the two pieces were probably fairly

similar in age—close enough that the date ranges yielded

by carbon-14 testing wouldn’t show a difference. From

looking at the selection of members’ pieces in the show-

and-tell, it appeared that the “typical” analytic tools, focusing

on design, structure, and materials, would yield more insights

than carbon-14 dating.

Our thanks to DeWitt for his selective and clear

introduction to Jürg Rageth’s book, and to our members for

their enthusiastic turnout (7) and show-and-tell offerings.

Jim Adelson

5. Tekke chuval, carbon-14

dated late 17th–early 19th

century

6. Two Chodor chuvals in

one member’s collection

7. Members and guests fill

the room at the Durant-

Kenrick House, Newton,

as Dewitt begins his

presentation 7

View from the Fringe 9

Peter Pap to Host a May 13 Event for NERS Members and Their Guests

From April 28 through May 27, well-known carpet dealer Peter Pap will present Artful Weavings: Featuring the John Corwin Afshar Collection at his gallery in Dublin, New Hampshire. Also included in this sales exhibition are outstanding items

from the Baganz, Price, Swan, and Cook collections—approximately 200 pieces in all. (For an online exhibition preview, see

http://www.peterpap.com/.)

A fellow member of NERS, Peter invites us and our guests to visit the Dublin gallery on Saturday, May 13. He will provide

lunch and offer us a special showing of Artful Weavings, at which he will tell us the story behind the Corwin Collection and

highlight some of his favorite pieces. Make your own travel arrangements, and plan to arrive by noon. RSVPs required!—

reply directly to Peter by May 5 to let him know how many people in your party will be attending.

Event Details

Date: Saturday, May 13Time: Noon to 3:00 p.m.Place: Peter Pap Oriental Rugs Inc. 1225 Main St., Dublin, NH 03444Directions: See Google Maps at http://peterpap.com/contact.cfmRSVP (by May 5): inquiries@peterpap.com or (603) 563-8717

Skinner April 23 Preview to Include Refreshments and Talk by Julia Bailey

On Sunday, April 23, the first day of previews for its April 25 sale

of fine oriental rugs and carpets, Skinner will host a reception

and slide talk by Julia Bailey, former NERS co-chair and present

editor of this newsletter. The preview (at Skinner’s Boston gallery,

as is the auction) runs from noon to 5; light refreshments will

be offered at 2:30, followed at 3 by Julia’s presentation,

“Flower/Power: The Legacy of Persian Carpets,” which she

summarizes as follows: “Most Persian rugs made before the

sixteenth century are now lost; our best idea of what they

looked like comes from manuscript paintings. During the

fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, according to these paintings,

rugs generally exhibited small-scale, abstract, geometric

designs. But during the sixteenth century, under Safavid

rule, carpets gained a new, more naturalistic vocabulary,

representing both courtly life on earth and a hoped-for afterlife

in a tree- and flower-filled garden paradise. In addressing

the design evolution of Persian carpets, I’ll present some

of the most illustrious sixteenth- and seventeenth-century

Persian carpets and show how their artistry has influenced

more modern Persian rugs, including examples in the current

auction.” For further information and directions, see

http://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/3004B. Silk hunting carpet (border detail), ca. 1530, MFA, Boston

The New England Rug Society is an informal,

non-profit organization of people interested

in enriching their knowledge and appreciation

of antique oriental rugs and textiles. Our meetings

are held seven or more times a year. Membership

levels and annual dues are: Single $45, Couple

$65, Supporting $90, Patron $120, Student $25.

Membership information and renewal forms are

available on our website, www.ne-rugsociety.org ;

by writing to the New England Rug Society,

P.O. Box 6125, Holliston, MA 01746; or by contacting

Jim Sampson at jahome22@gmail.com.

Editorial contributors to this issue: Julia Bailey (editor),

Jim Adelson

Distributor: Jim Sampson

NERS 2016–17 Steering Committee: Jim Adelson,

Julia Bailey, Yon Bard, Richard Belkin, Louise Dohanian,

Joel Greifinger (Chairman), Lloyd Kannenberg, Richard Larkin,

Ann Nicholas, Jim Sampson, Jeff Spurr

The New England Rug Society

P.O. Box 6125

Holliston, MA 01746

In this issue:

Apr. 21: Collector Series, Honoring Yon Bard 1

May. 21: Annual Picnic, with Moth Mart and Show-and-Tell 2

Feb. Meeting Review (Jeff Spurr on Prayer-Rug History) 3

Mar. Meeting Review (Mallary on Rageth’s Turkmen Carpets) 6

Calendar, Photo Credits 8

Special Events: Skinner Lecture, Peter Pap Dublin Show 9